KEJAURAM RATRE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


Digitally signed
by SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
Date:
2026.06.27
11:58:04 +0530
SAGRIKA
AGRAWAL
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPCR No. 336 of 2026
1 - Kejauram Ratre S/o Chintaram Aged About 58 Years R/o Village
Chherkadih, P.S. Palari, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Jail,
Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Additional Secretary Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Jail, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Director General Of Jail And Correctional Services Hedquarters, Jail And
Correctional Services, Sector 19, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002.
4 - Superintendent Of Jail Central Jail Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Varun Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. G.A.

2
Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi , Judge
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Judge ,
Judgment on Board
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
25.06.2026
1. The present matter has been listed on default. Upon due consideration,
the default pointed out by the Registry is waived.
2. Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy.
Govt. Advocate for the Respondent/ State.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for following relief:-
“10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may be kind enough to call
for the records of the case from the respondents.
10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-
aside the order dated 22/03/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed
by the respondent no.1/State Government.
10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the
respondents to release Petitioner granting remission under
the provisions of section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (Section 432 Of Cr.P.C.).
10.4 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to
pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs
which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case.”
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
implicated in a criminal case in the year 2010 and was taken into
custody on 07.11.2010. He was subsequently convicted by the learned
First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, then District Raipur (now

3
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara), vide judgment dated 28.06.2013
passed in Sessions Trial No.28/2011 for offences punishable under
Sections 506 Part II, 450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the
Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment
along with fine on each count. He further submits that Criminal Appeal
No.696/2013 preferred against the judgment of conviction was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2019 and thereafter
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.41389/2019 was also dismissed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2022. He further submits that
the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has
completed more than 19 years of sentence including remission as
calculated under the applicable Prison Rules, thereby becoming
entitled to consideration for remission. It is further submitted that the
conduct of the petitioner throughout his incarceration has been found
to be good and corrective, and considering his satisfactory jail conduct,
the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, vide communication dated
30.07.2025 sought opinion from the Court of conviction regarding grant
of remission. Pursuant thereto, the learned First Additional Sessions
Judge, Balodabazar, vide order dated 25.08.2025, furnished a positive
recommendation in favour of the petitioner for grant of remission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that despite the
favourable recommendation of the convicting Court and the
satisfactory conduct of the petitioner, the State Government vide
impugned order dated 22.03.2026 rejected the petitioner's claim for
remission solely on the basis of the negative recommendation of the
Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board. It is contended that the
impugned order is arbitrary and unsustainable in law, particularly in

4
view of the amendment brought into force by Notification dated
23.04.2025 whereby the bar on consideration of remission under the
Prison Rules has been removed. He further submits that this Court in
W.P.(Cr.) No.178/2026 (Manoj Sahu v. State and Others), decided on
06.04.2026, has already directed grant of remission consideration in
similar circumstances and has reiterated that the philosophy underlying
premature release is reformative and not retributive. It is thus argued
that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision
and the impugned order deserves to be set aside with a direction to
extend the benefit of remission to the petitioner in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner stands
convicted for serious offences punishable under Sections 506 Part II,
450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and
is undergoing life imprisonment pursuant to the judgment of conviction
dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions
Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No.28/2011. It is submitted that
the judgment of conviction has attained finality as Criminal Appeal
No.696/2013 preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on
07.02.2019 and the Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.41389/2019
was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2022.
Learned State counsel would further submit that the offences for which
the petitioner has been convicted are grave and heinous in nature,
involving offences against human life and public order, and therefore
the petitioner's case requires strict scrutiny before extending the benefit
of remission. It is contended that although the opinion of the Court of
conviction was obtained and a favourable recommendation was
furnished by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar,

5
the matter was thereafter placed before the Chhattisgarh State
Punishment Review Board, which, upon consideration of all relevant
facts and circumstances, did not recommend grant of remission to the
petitioner. Based upon such recommendation and the material
available on record, the State Government passed the impugned order
dated 22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission. It is
further submitted that the recommendation of the State Punishment
Review Board constitutes a relevant consideration in the decision-
making process and the State Government, after taking into account
the nature of the offences, surrounding circumstances and the overall
impact of the petitioner's release on society, has exercised its
discretion in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order does
not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or perversity warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully
perused the pleadings, annexures and the material available on record.
7. The petitioner stands convicted for offences punishable under Sections
506 Part II, 450, 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 of the Indian
Penal Code and is in custody since 07.11.2010. It is not in dispute that
the petitioner has undergone more than 15 years of actual
imprisonment and has completed the requisite period of sentence
including remission as contemplated under the applicable Prison
Rules. The material placed on record further reveals that the
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, having found the conduct of the
petitioner to be good and corrective, initiated the process for
consideration of remission by seeking the opinion of the Court of
conviction vide communication dated 30.07.2025. The learned First

6
Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, thereafter vide order dated
25.08.2025 furnished a positive recommendation in favour of the
petitioner for grant of remission. Thus, both the jail authorities as well
as the Court of conviction have found the petitioner fit for consideration
of remission on the basis of his conduct and reformation during the
period of incarceration.
8. The rejection of the petitioner's claim for remission by the State
Government vide impugned order dated 22.03.2026 is founded upon
the negative recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment
Review Board. However, a perusal of the impugned order would reveal
that despite the positive recommendation furnished by the Court of
conviction and the satisfactory conduct reported by the jail authorities,
the claim of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any
specific or cogent reasons demonstrating as to why the petitioner was
found unsuitable for grant of remission. The impugned decision
appears to proceed merely on the basis of the adverse
recommendation of the Review Board without any independent
consideration of the relevant factors such as the petitioner's long period
of incarceration, his reformation, good conduct in jail and the
favourable opinion of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Balodabazar. This Court also takes note of the decision rendered in
W.P.(Cr.) No.178/2026 (Manoj Sahu v. State and Others), wherein relief
was granted in similar circumstances after taking into consideration the
amendment brought by Notification dated 23.04.2025 and the
reformative object underlying remission. At the same time, it is trite that
every claim for remission is required to be examined on its own facts
and the benefit granted in another case would not automatically confer

7
an enforceable right upon the petitioner. Nevertheless, the decision-
making process must satisfy the test of fairness, reasonableness and
non-arbitrariness and must be founded on objective considerations
rather than on vague or generalized grounds.
9. At this juncture, it would be apposite to notice the scheme governing
remission under Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Samhita, 2023 (formerly Section 432 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure) read with the Chhattisgarh Prison Rules, 1968, as
amended by Notification dated 23.04.2025. The amendment has
removed the earlier embargo on consideration of remission in certain
categories of cases and reinforces the reformative and rehabilitative
object underlying the remission policy. The statutory framework
contemplates consideration of premature release of eligible life
convicts on the basis of relevant factors including the period of
incarceration undergone, conduct in prison, prospects of reformation
and recommendations of the competent authorities. In the present
case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has remained in custody
since 07.11.2010 and has completed the requisite period of sentence,
including remission, for consideration of premature release under the
applicable Rules. The material available on record further
demonstrates that the conduct of the petitioner has been found to be
satisfactory by the jail authorities and the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, has also furnished a favourable
recommendation dated 25.08.2025. In such circumstances, while the
recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board
is undoubtedly a relevant factor, the same cannot be considered in
isolation so as to defeat the statutory scheme and the reformative

8
purpose underlying the remission policy, particularly when the other
competent authorities have assessed the petitioner to be fit for
consideration of remission.
10. It is well settled that although the power to grant remission under
Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 (formerly
Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is discretionary in
nature, such discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily and is required
to be guided by relevant considerations and the constitutional mandate
of fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Laxman Naskar v. State of West Bengal, reported
in (2000) 7 SCC 626 , has held that while considering premature
release of a convict, the competent authority is required to assess,
inter alia, whether the offence is an individual act without affecting
society at large, the possibility of recurrence of criminal conduct, the
potentiality of the convict to commit crime in future, and whether any
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the convict incarcerated
for a longer period. Likewise, in Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 16 1, it has been held that
orders pertaining to remission and clemency are amenable to judicial
review where the decision is found to be arbitrary, mala fide, based on
extraneous or irrelevant considerations, or suffers from non-application
of mind. Further, in State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reported in (2010) 4
SCC 216 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the claim for
remission must be considered in accordance with the policy applicable
to the convict and that such policy ought to be applied in a fair,
reasonable and non-discriminatory manner. Applying the aforesaid
principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the

9
considered view that the petitioner's claim for remission was required
to be examined objectively by taking into account his long period of
incarceration, satisfactory jail conduct, favourable recommendation of
the Court of conviction and the applicable Prison Rules as amended,
rather than being rejected solely on the basis of a negative
recommendation of the State Punishment Review Board.
11. The philosophy underlying remission and premature release is
fundamentally reformative rather than retributive. The object of the
criminal justice system is not merely to punish an offender but also to
facilitate his reformation and eventual reintegration into society as a
law-abiding citizen. Long incarceration, coupled with satisfactory
conduct in prison, demonstrable signs of reformation and favourable
recommendations from the competent authorities, constitutes a
significant factor while considering a claim for remission. In the present
case, the petitioner has remained in custody since 07.11.2010 and has
completed the requisite period of sentence prescribed under the
applicable Prison Rules. The material on record further reveals that the
conduct of the petitioner has been found to be good and corrective by
the jail authorities and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Balodabazar, has also furnished a positive recommendation dated
25.08.2025 in support of his claim for remission. Moreover, the
amendment brought about by Notification dated 23.04.2025 has
removed the earlier bar on consideration of remission, thereby making
the petitioner eligible for consideration under the prevailing legal
framework. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that in W.P.(Cr.)
No.178/2026 (Manoj Sahu v. State and Others), decided on
06.04.2026, this Court has emphasized the reformative object

10
underlying remission and has granted relief in substantially similar
circumstances. Though the benefit extended in another case cannot be
claimed as a matter of right, the said decision nevertheless constitutes
a relevant circumstance reinforcing the requirement of consistency,
fairness and non-arbitrariness in the exercise of statutory discretion by
the State authorities.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
22.03.2026 rejecting the petitioner's claim for remission cannot be
sustained in law. The rejection is founded solely upon the negative
recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment Review Board,
without disclosing any cogent reasons or objective material justifying
the denial of remission. The record reveals that the petitioner has
remained in custody since 07.11.2010, has completed the requisite
period of incarceration for consideration of remission under the
applicable Rules, and has maintained satisfactory conduct during his
incarceration. Further, both the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur
and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar have
furnished favourable recommendations supporting the petitioner's
claim for remission. However, these relevant and material
considerations do not appear to have been accorded due weight while
passing the impugned order. In the absence of any tangible material
demonstrating that the petitioner's release would be detrimental to
society or that he remains unfit for reintegration into the mainstream,
the rejection of his claim merely on the basis of an adverse
recommendation defeats the reformative object underlying the
remission policy and renders the decision-making process arbitrary,

11
unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles governing exercise
of power under Section 473 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita,
2023.
13. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly
considering that the petitioner has remained in custody since
07.11.2010, has completed the requisite period of incarceration
prescribed under the applicable Prison Rules, has maintained
satisfactory conduct during his incarceration, and has earned
favourable recommendations from both the Superintendent, Central
Jail, Raipur and the learned First Additional Sessions Judge,
Balodabazar, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner's claim for
remission deserved fair and objective consideration in accordance with
law. The Court also takes note of the fact that the amendment brought
into force by Notification dated 23.04.2025 has removed the earlier
embargo on consideration of remission, thereby rendering the
petitioner eligible for consideration under the prevailing legal
framework. In such circumstances, the action of the respondent
authorities in rejecting the petitioner's claim solely on the basis of the
adverse recommendation of the Chhattisgarh State Punishment
Review Board, without assigning cogent reasons or disclosing any
objective material to outweigh the favourable factors available on
record, cannot be sustained in law. Such a decision is arbitrary,
unreasonable and contrary to the reformative philosophy underlying
the remission policy, besides offending the constitutional mandate of
fairness and non-arbitrariness embodied in Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.

12
14. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
The impugned order bearing No. LAW-4201/236(34)/2026/JAIL-3
dated 22.03.2026 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
15. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of remission to the
petitioner in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 473
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 and the Chhattisgarh
Prison Rules, 1968, as amended by Notification dated 23.04.2025, and
to release the petitioner forthwith, if not required in any other case,
subject to compliance with such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed under the relevant Rules. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) ( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )
Judge Judge
sagrika